Primary Wrap Up

Tom Edsall has got a good write up of last night's results over at HuffPost. Barack Obama won a huge 15-point victory in North Carolina and narrowly lost Indiana by less than 2-points. To make a long story short: he exceeded expectations. I also thought that his speech last night in NC was much better than his Pennslyvania concescion speech in Indiana a few weeks ago. Obama was on message and he got in a few good zingers at McCain. The crowd seemed electrified by his speech, like they used to be back in January and February, hopefully this means his once again ensnared the momentum that marked his early candidacy.

Well, I'm a broken record when it comes to my commentary on Hillary Clinton, but it's time for her to drop out. She's lost any momentum she once had and her argument for the superdelegates was pretty much negated last night. She has also reportedly lent another $6.4 million to her campaign. It's clear that the end is near for her campaign. It's unfortunate that her run is most likely going to end on such a negative note, but when you really think about it, you end a campaign because you experience a defeat, these things rarely end positively.

Also, to my amusement, Sam Stein reports that St. John had a rough night. He won majorities in North Carolina and Indiana but Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul were able to pick up a combined 20% of the Republican vote in each state. This is notable because only Paul is still in the race. His Maverickness will need some crazy straight talk to maverick his way out of that debacle.

This will never end!

Well a new AP/Ipsos poll shows Hillary Clinton leading St. John of the Straight Talk by 9 points nationally. Needless to say, this is not good news for Barack Obama, who leads McCain by a meager 2 percentage points, i.e. within the poll's margin of error. I'll admit it, it's hard to ask Clinton to drop out when she just won Pennsylvania and she's shallacking McCain in national polls. Everyone talks about how every contest from here on out is a "must win" for Clinton, but let's be honest, they're starting to be "must wins" for Obama as well. If he can somehow pull out victories in Indiana and North Carolina, that would take a lot of the wind out of Clinton's sales. While there are certainly a lot of white working class voters (Obama'a bane) in IN and NC, I think Obama has a decent shot at winning both states. First off, there are a lot of African-Americans in North Carolina, which should hopefully lock it up for him. Plus, look at all the colleges in Indiana: Purdue, Notre Dame, Valparaiso, Butler, University of Indiana, IUPUI, etc. If Obama can continue to turn out college aged voters in Indiana like he has been elsewhere he should be in good shape. Nevertheless, poll results like this will keep both candidates alive for some time.

P.S. These results demonstrate that there is cause for optimism considering that even with Bittergate, the Wright controversy, and faux sniper fire dominating the 24-hour McCain-loving media cycle, both Democratic candidates are running even or ahead of his Maverickness!

Update: The Obama Fuck Up

Well, I'm pleased to say that it appears that Hillary Clinton has saved Barack Obama's ass in regards to bittergate. Ezra Klein details in this post how Clinton's decision to latch on to these remarks and make it a campaign issue have resulted in the media dropping the story on its own merits and reframing it as a spat between Obama and Clinton. As we've seen in South Carolina, this type of framing tends to work against Clinton and for Obama. I'll be honest, I really thought this was a huge blow to Obama, but it appears that he has dodged a bullet, at least for the moment. However, I am very happy that I was wrong and I am currently eating my words with a side of cornbeef hash.

Also, today's New York Times column from P-Krug takes a look at the "bitter" comments made by Obama and using a study from his Princeton colleague Larry Bartels comes to the conclusion that Obama was wrong about the voting patterns of the supposedly "bitter" working class whites of rural Pennsylvania. It turns out that the rural working class is much more concerned about economic issues than Obama thought. Once again, I was wrong about this, as I thought Obama was spot on with his comments. Once again, I am proud to eat my words, only this time with a "Love-It" sized "Birthday Cake Remix" from Coldstone.

In conclusion, my name is Scott, and as the title of the blog suggests, I oftentimes DON'T KNOW!!!

Hillary, PLEASE STOP!

The picture is becoming clearer everyday: Hillary Clinton does not care about the Democratic party. She's jumping on the meida bandwagon trying to condemn Barack Obama over his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. Josh Marshall has a great post about all of this. Clinton is turning to her sworn enemies to help her smear Obama. I mean the American Spectator, come on Hillary! She's granting interviews to right-wing rags now!?! It's baffling that Hillary Clinton is either completely ignorant of, or apathetic towards the damage she's doing to the Democratic Party. If she somehow manages to steal to the nomination by convincing the superdelegates that she is the more electable candidate, she will have suceeded only in shrinking the Democratic coalition that she will need to win the general election. There is a lot of resentment out there between Obama and Clinton supporters. I'm personally considering staying home, or writing in "Wolverine" or "Batman" if she's the nominee. This has ceased being a matter of convenience and transformed into a matter of political survival. Clinton needs to realize that the longer John McCain has to consolidate his base, the smaller our chances become of gaining the presidency. Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi need to get off their asses and take action. It would also help if Al Gore and John Edwards would just endorse someone already. It seems to me that each would most likely endorse Obama, but I've heard otherwise from some. Either way, their endorsements would lend huge credibility to either candidate and would also likely be accompanied by renewed or additional support. I think we should look into starting a fund to purchase a Wrap It Up Box for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton: McCain Cheerleader?

Jonathan Chait has interesting post up at the Plank examining whether or not Clinton would prefer a general election victory for John McCain over Barack Obama. I guess I'd like to think that Clinton wouldn't want this, and I doubt she does, but you never know. Chait makes a good point that Clinton would be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2012 if Obama were to lose the general, but I think that her chances would be even more lackluster then than they are now. Granted, that assumes that McCain would have a successful first term. I doubt that would be the case, since McCain has shown recently that he has little expertise in pretty much any policy area, leadership included. However, as I've mentioned countless times, the media's love affair with the Saint would likely result in them painting a lovely portrait of a McCain presidency.

Anways, I digress, Chait also hammers on the fact that Clinton really has no shot at picking up the nomination. If she does (somehow) get the nomination, she will have gained it by convincing the superdelegates that Obama is a wanker. If she does that, I really think its safe to say that the Democratic Party will fall into civil war. Clinton has damaged herself in the eyes of many Democrats that would've otherwise supported her had she won the nomination fair and square. It should also be noted that independents and Republicans find Clinton more or less radioactive. It has to suck to be Hillary Clinton, I do still have some sympathy for her as there is no way to determine how much damage the media's coverage of her has done to her campaign. That being said, what's done is done and we have to move forward. Hillary needs to realize that her continued presence in this primary is damaging the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. In short, she just got reelected to another term in the Senate, she should look to the best interests of the people of New York and return to her duties as one of their elected voices.

Um, Brilliant

By way of Jonathan Chait's recommendation, I read Michelle Goldberg's brilliant column for the Gaurdian deriding certain feminists for alleging (in so many words) that refusing to support Hillary Clinton is sexist. Finally! Look, this is just a great piece, and I agree with Chait, you need to take 10 minutes out of your life to read it, because you will emerge smarter. I consider myself a feminist. Yes, I'm a straight male that has no problem saying that I'm a feminist. I am really offended though that people like Gloria Steinem are accusing those of us that support Obama of forgetting about the victimization of woman. There is no doubt that the MSM's treatment of Clinton has been deplorable, but it's not fair to group Obama supporters in with the media. Many, if not most Obama supporters will enthusiastically support Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee. I very highly doubt that this will be the case, but it's true regardless. It's especially unfair for older women to accuse younger women (that overwhelmingly support Obama) of abandoning them. The cold hard truth is that Obama appeals across gender and racial lines, especially among young people. Clinton's base consists of older women, Latinos, and working-class whites. Clinton's lack of support among young women is more a result of demographics than anyone abandoning or shunning the feminist cause.

This is all the more frustrating because people like Steny "I really kind of suck as the Majority Leader" Hoyer are worrying that the ugly gender and racial attacks are hurting the party. What? Which gender attacks are you speaking about Steny!? The Obama campaign has not made gender an issue. As I stated above, the MSM certainly has, but it is patently unfair to accuse the Obama campaign of making gender-based attacks. That's simply not the case. Conversely, the Clinton campaign has made race a centerpiece of their attacks on Obama. The latest example is the public meltdown of the once great Geraldine Ferraro.

In conclusion, it's not fair, and frankly, it's wrong for Clinton supporters to accuse those that don't support their candidate of being sexist. I like Hillary too, and I think she'd be a great president, but please, she's not so great a candidate that the only reason that anyone wouldn't support her is because they are sexist. That's just an offensive and illogical argument. This race has been divisive enough already. Clinton's continued presence has become increasingly toxic. While I consider the fearmongering of Steny Hoyer and others that the campaign will fatally damage the party overblown, the continued racial attacks can only hurt. Hillary needs to accept a dose of reality and end her campaign.

Tune Her Out

Over at the Plank, Jonathan Cohn has an interesting post suggesting that the Obama campaign should just ignore the musings of Geraldine Ferraro. I agree. Granted, it is frustrating that the brilliant Samantha Power had to resign after calling Hillary Clinton a monster (off the record!!!) and the Clinton campaign is making no such move in regards to Ferraro. Ferraro's comments were made on the record and have a clear racial connotation. "Monster" is not a gender or racial specific label, so calling Hillary a "monster" could not be implied as sexist. Moreover it should be noted that what Ferraro said is, for the most part, accurate. Barack Obama more than likely would not be were he is today if he weren't a black man. At the same time, if Hillary Clinton wasn't the wife of a two-term president she probably wouldn't be were she is today either. My boss pointed out to me that this was a great year for John Edwards to run for president, but the presence of strong African-American and female candidates did much to destroy the luster of his campaign. I think this is correct, and I would go so far as to say that if either Obama or Clinton had decided not to run, John Edwards would be the current Democratic nominee for president.

Anyways, I digress. Obama should ignore Ferraro because she's just destroying her own credibility and making herself look like a jerk. She now even is alleging that the only reason the Obama campaign is attacking her is because she is white. What? This is an odd thing for a liberal Democrat to say. Seriously, turn on your television and watch Ferraro destroy herself. Plus, in the end, this is just going to make Clinton look bad. As Cohn points out in his post, the exit polls in Mississippi showed that the vote broke down on racial lines and it makes sense (though it's dirty as hell) for the Clinton campaign to keep Ferraro around for Pennsylvania where similar working class racial divisions exist. My point is that Obama should just ignore this and turn all his guns in the direction of John McCain. Obama is the frontrunner. He has a substantial delegate lead that it is very unlikely that Clinton will ever be able to surmount. It is the role of the Democratic nominee to respond to attacks from the Republican nominee. Obama shouldn't bother himself with the nagging attacks of dying campaign.

St. McCain the Angry

Mark Benjamin wrote a very interesting piece for Salon about the temperment of St. McCain, son of God, heir to the throne of the Lord and the other presidential candidates. Although you never hear about it from the mainstream media that adores him and grovels at his feet, holy John is known for having an extremely short fuse. The guy literally explodes in anger when pressed. Some of the accounts that Benjamin details in the article are truly fascinating. McCain completely loses it and screams obscenities at people. Benjamin then relates McCain's temper to his readiness to make split-second military decisions. A number of senior military officials (albeit retired ones) expressed serious reservations about McCain's fitness for leadership to Benjamin. The article also goes into the personalities of Clinton and Obama and leaves readers with the sense that Obama has the calmest temperment.

Well Played Wisconsin!

As I'm sure you know by now, Obama won Wisconsin. It looks like he'll be walking away with 38 additional delegates to Clinton's 27. Obama made significant inroads into working class voters last night and he won every age group under 65. This is very encouraging, especially as far as working class voters are concerned. He will need their support to have any shot in Ohio and Pennsylvania. I'm still not willing to count Clinton out, she's a brillinat person, and I'm sure she has few more cards to play. That being said, in order for her candidacy to remain viable, she's going to have to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania by huge margins. While this is not impossible, it is highly unlikely. Obama will get lots of positive media coverage as a result of his win in Wisconsin. Consequently, he will move up in the polls. Should be an interesting two weeks.

P.S. I still maintain that Chris Matthews is an ass, but this take-down of Texas State Senator (and Obama supporter) Kirk Watson is just damn good journalism.

St. John Loves Constant War

E.J. Dionne, Jr. has a useful column for the Democratic presidential candidates in today's Post. The basic thrust of Dionne's argument is that Obama and/or Clinton should not hesistate in critiquing McCain's view, and the neoconservatives (which McCain is, in fact, now among), that terrorism comprises the greatest struggle the U.S. has faced since the Cold War. Dionne argues, in effect, that McCain places too much emphasis on terrorism and too little on other foreign policy dilemmas. He lists strained relations between Latin America and the U.S. and poverty in Africa among others as issues that deserve more focus. It seems to me that reducing poverty aound the world would restore much of the goodwill the rest of the planet use to have for America. Needless to say, if America adopted a foreign policy guided more by humility and compassion, it would do more to combat terrorism than a million-man army.

Shady

Ezra Klein has two must read posts today, here and here. Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman, a good Senator, and she would probably be a pretty good president. However, some of the tactics she's rumored to be planning to garner the nomination, as Klein lays out in his posts, would literally tear the party apart. If Clinton were to steal the nomination, it would just be more fodder for the Republicans to hurl at her come November. I'm not as of yet too concerned about this. Despite what the media says, Clinton is still in this race. In fact, Clinton still has a reasonable shot at winning the race. That being said, as Josh Green details in his fantastic report over at the Atlantic, the Clinton campaign is obviously in disarray. My thinking is that as long as Clinton doesn't win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Obama pretty much has this thing locked up (that is, minus any shady dealings by the Clinton campaign). I'm hoping that Howard Dean, Clinton, and Obama can come to some kind of agreement. This election brings with it the best oppurtunity for Democrats to make huge gains that we're going to get for a long, long time. One can only hope that individual ambition does not derail this oppurtunity for the collective good.

P.S. Maureen Dowd has gasp! a very good and fair column on Hillary Clinton. I miss the old Maureen, but she's had a few good columns in a role now, I hope this means that she's back!

Death to the DLC

There are at least two points I disagree with in this post. First, Stephen Suh condemns the Democrats for their DLC-advocated move to the center (aka right). Before he makes this point he criticizes them for running away from Bill Clinton. However, last I heard, Bill Clinton was the poster boy of the DLC. The DLC, for those of you that aren't familiar with it, is the Democratic Leadership Council. They frequently advocate for the Democrats to embrace the business wing of the party and move towards the center. Bill Clinton's strategy of triangulation was a move to the center. Don't get me wrong I think Bill Clinton was a great president but he certainly wasn't a liberal. Running away from the labor movement and insisting on welfare reform seems to be exactly the type of thing that the GOP could embrace, and they did, while Clinton was in office. Therefore, Mr. Suh is contradicting himself when he argues that the party should not run away from Bill Clinton and should embrace thier progressive roots. Personally, I don't think you can do both. If you want to be another Bill Clinton, you have to embrace the center and distance yourself from the base.

The other point I disagree with is Suh's suggestion that Barack Obama is running away from the Democratic party:

And Obama has already begun running away from Clinton and away from the Democratic party. This kind of thing, once started, won't stop here. Hillary and Obama are tied, and the gloves are going to come off - even Mr. Nice-and-Civil is going to get rougher as time goes on. This kind of thing also cannot be undone. We can't make this rhetoric, these flyers, go away during the general election. Every time Obama makes this campaign a referendum about Bill Clinton's presidency and/or personal characteristics, he's playing along with the GOP's favorite strategy.

And he will lose in November - to McCain, to Romney, to Huckabee or to a handkerchief with George Bush's morning noseblow on it. Because those Americans who don't live in DC, who aren't addicted to political coverage and who don't attend Georgetown cocktail parties want a choice - a real choice, not one between McCain's crazy brand of Republicanism vs. Obama's more genteel and civil brand of Republicanism-lite.

Stephen should've read this fantastic article by Ezra Klein. Both Obama and Clinton have embraced the progressive cause. They have both utilize rhetoric that has sung the praises of positive government action. Barack Obama is not running away from the Democratic party, and neither is Hillary Clinton. Both candidates are far more liberal than Bill Clinton. Democrats should be excited that their nominee, whether it's Obama or Clinton, will be a standard bearer for the progressive movement.

Not so Super Tuesday

Well the results are in and the winner is.........well, there is no winner. I can't honestly say that I'm too surprised by this. I was thinking/hoping that Obama would pull out an upset in Cali. No such luck. However, Obama did pick up wins in Missouri and Connecticutt that were considered upsets. I can't help but kinda feel sorry for the Mittster. I know he's a total douche but the guy spent over a million bucks per delegate and he still lost. Despite the new buzz, I don't think Huck is still in this. The GOP nomination is St. McCain's to lose. However, the possibility of Huck as St. McCain's running mate is utterly terrifying.

Needless to say, Super Humongous Totalitarian Tuesday ended up being pretty indecisive. This thing is gonna go on for at least another month. The most interesting things to watch will be:

1. How the media proceeds to spin lasts nights results
2. Is the Mittster really gonna stay in the race?
3. Bill Clinton's behavior from this point on

That's all for now, more updates as the day rolls on!